Ketubot 26b — the Talmud in English

And we raised him

to the priesthood on the basis of that witness.

And

afterward

two witnesses came and said: “He is the son of a divorced woman and the son of a halutza,” and we lowered him

we again removed him from the priesthood,

and

again

one witness came and said: “I know about him that he is a kohen,”

And according to everyone,

that is, both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon hold that the last witness who validated him and the first witness who validated him

join together to be considered as

considered as

one testimony,

and if so, there are here two witnesses who disqualify him and two witnesses who validate him, and we should have established him upon his presumption of fitness and validated him for the priesthood.

And here they disagree over the

matter of

whether one must be concerned for the degradation of the court,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon.

The first tanna

[that is, Rabbi Eliezer]

holds: Since we lowered him

we removed him from the priesthood on the basis of the two witnesses, again

we do not raise him

to the priesthood, because

we are concerned for the degradation of the court,

that is, people will come to treat the court with contempt because they see that it nullified its rulings twice. — Rashi.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds: We lowered him

by means of the first witnesses,

and we raise him

by means of the later witnesses, and even though they are two against two, we establish him upon his presumption of fitness.

And even though a rumor had emerged about him to disqualify him, nevertheless, since we had already raised him above that rumor by means of one witness, the rumor is no longer considered an objection, and we establish him upon his presumption of fitness. Rashi.

And we are not concerned for the degradation of the court!

And according to this answer, the explanation of the Mishna’s statement, “Rabbi Elazar said: When is this so? In a place where there are no objectors; but in a place where there are objectors, they do not raise [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness,” is that even if that witness joins with another witness to validate him, he is not believed, because we are concerned for the degradation of the court.

Rav Ashi challenges

this answer of the Gemara:

If so,

that they disagree over whether one must be concerned for the degradation of the court,

even

if

two

come initially

and two

at the end,

also

their dispute applies; and why did Rabbi Elazar say that in a place where there are objectors they do not raise [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness? Surely even on the basis of two witnesses they do not raise him, because we are concerned for the degradation of the court?

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

We shall always establish our Mishna as above: a rumor emerged about him to disqualify him, one witness testified about him to validate him, two came and disqualified him, and then one witness again came to validate him. And according to everyone, we are not concerned for the degradation of the court, and they disagree

over the

matter of

joining together for testimony.

And in this

they disagree:

Rabbi Elazar holds that the last witness who came to validate him does not join together with the first witness; therefore, when two witnesses came to disqualify him, he again does not rise to the priesthood except on the basis of two witnesses, even if one witness had already preceded them to validate him, because the last witness and the first witness do not join together.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that their testimony joins together; therefore, even when two witnesses came to disqualify him, the testimony of the last witness is effective to validate him, because it joins with the testimony of the first witness.

And

this dispute depends

upon the dispute of

the following

tannaim, as it was taught

in a beraita: Two who came to testify concerning a monetary obligation,

their testimony does not join together until both of them see as one

the loan; but if one of them says, “In my presence so-and-so lent money to so-and-so,” and the other says, “It is true that I did not see the loan, but in my presence so-and-so acknowledged that he owed money to so-and-so,” their testimony does not join together to extract money on their basis. These are the words of the first tanna.

But

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha said: Even

if they came to testify

one after the other

and did not see the testimony as one, they join their testimony and extract money.

And

likewise, the tannaim also disagree regarding the time of giving testimony—the first tanna holds:

their testimony is not established in the court until both of them testify as one,

but if one came and testified, and afterward another came and testified, their testimony does not join together.

But

Rabbi Natan says: We hear the words of this one today, and when his fellow comes tomorrow, we hear his words.

And in this dispute Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda also disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds like the first tanna, and therefore we do not accept the testimony of the last witness until two witnesses come to validate him.

But Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rabbi Natan, and therefore they join their testimony, and we raise him to the priesthood on the basis of the testimony of the last witness.

Mishna:

A woman who was imprisoned

in a prison

by gentiles on account of

a debt

of money is permitted to her husband.

And even if he is a kohen, and we are not concerned lest she was enticed or raped by one of the captors, since they do not treat her licentiously, so that they will be able to receive their money back.

But if she was imprisoned

on account of capital charges

[that is, she was sentenced to death],

she is forbidden to her husband,

even if he is an Israelite, to whom a raped woman is not forbidden; nevertheless, this woman is forbidden, because they treat her licentiously, and we are concerned lest she consented to one of them, and a woman who has intercourse willingly becomes forbidden to her husband.

Gemara:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said in the name of Rav:

What we learned in the Mishna, that one imprisoned on account of money is permitted to her husband,

was taught

that she is permitted—

only

when

the hand of Israel is stronger than that of the gentiles,

and they fear losing their money if they treat her improperly;

but

if

the hand of the gentiles is stronger over themselves, even

when she was imprisoned

on account of money, she is forbidden to her husband.

Since they do not fear treating her improperly.

He challenges

he raised the difficulty

Rava

against Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak: Surely we learned in tractate Eduyot that

Rabbi Yosei the kohen and Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav testified concerning an Israelite woman who had been taken as a pledge

taken as collateral for a debt

in Ashkelon, and the members of her

family distanced her

out of concern that she had had intercourse with a captor,

and

even though those witnesses who testified that she had been taken as a pledge were

her witnesses

who

testify concerning her

now

that she had not been secluded and that she had not become impure.

And the Sages said to them

to the members of her family:

If you believe

the witnesses

who said that she had been taken as a pledge, believe

them also

that she had not been secluded and that she had not become impure; and if you do not believe

the witnesses

that she had not been secluded and that she had not become impure,

likewise

do not believe that she had been taken as a pledge.

Thus far the Mishna.

And the Gemara analyzes:

But Ashkelon, where the hand of the gentiles is stronger over themselves,

for Ashkelon is in the land of the Philistines, and furthermore, Israel had already been exiled from their land. Rashi.